Afghanistan: Aid

Baroness Northover: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the recent report of the Agency Co-ordinating Body for Afghan Relief which states that Afghanistan has not yet received $10 billion of promised aid, and that 40 per cent of the money that has been delivered has been spent on corporate profits and consultancy fees; and what representations they are making to allies to deliver promised aid, in a way which brings the greatest benefit to Afghanistan.

Baroness Crawley: The UK Government support many of the findings of the ACBAR/Oxfam report. The UK is on course to fully deliver on its aid pledges to Afghanistan, and urges other donors to do the same. The figures outlined in the ACBAR report are not totally correct; none the less the general points about failure to deliver pledges and poor aid effectiveness are well made. Improving aid effectiveness is a central part of the UK development effort in Afghanistan. Effective development assistance is essential to support military gains and weaken the insurgency and narcotics trade, especially in the south.
	The UK actively lobbies other donors in Kabul to put more aid through the Government's budget and to have the international community engage in more local procurement. The UK will actively lobby for improved aid effectiveness at forthcoming donor co-ordination conferences.

Armed Forces: Tactical Landing Zones

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the arrangements for apportioning responsibilities for force protection at tactical landing zones between the RAF regiment and other deployed forces.

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: The threat assessment for all tactical landing zones (TLZs) is continuously updated and is used to provide guidance on the measures required to provide adequate force protection. The deployed command will normally allocate force protection duties for a TLZ to the unit which has responsibility for the area in which the TLZ is located. This may be a unit from the RAF regiment, but could be a suitably trained Army or Royal Marine unit.
	The brigade air liaison officer, working in conjunction with the air component commander and the brigade operations staff, will be responsible for ensuring that the unit tasked with providing force protection is trained and equipped for this role.

Benefits: Overseas Recipients

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which social security and state pension benefits are payable to home addresses or bank addresses outside the United Kingdom; and how much of each benefit is so paid.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: The following benefits are payable outside the United Kingdom; state pension, widows benefit and bereavement benefit.
	These are payable anywhere in the world, although they are only subject to annual increases in European economic area (EEA) member states and Switzerland, and countries with a reciprocal agreement (RA) with the UK that enables the increases to be paid; for example, the USA, Jamaica.
	In other countries, the rate is frozen at either the rate on departure—customers already receiving benefit at the time of their departure to a frozen rate (FR) country—or award (customers already living in an FR country at the time of the award).
	Incapacity Benefit (IB)
	This is divided into IB short-term (IBST) (paid for the first 52 weeks) and IB long-term (paid from the 53rd week).
	IB long-term and severe disablement allowance (SDA) are not exportable under UK national legislation unless persons abroad regulations, EC regulations (for EEA and Switzerland) or reciprocal agreement allowing for export applies.
	The persons abroad regulations—benefit is not payable on permanent absences. It can be paid for up to 26 weeks in certain circumstances provided the absence is temporary.
	The EC regulations (EEA/Switzerland)—benefit is fully exportable for the duration of the entitlement.
	Reciprocal agreement (RA) countries—IBLT can be paid, subject to the particular agreement. SDA is not exportable under RAs.
	Incapacity Benefit Short-Term (IBST) and Maternity Allowance (MA)
	These are not exportable under UK national legislation unless persons abroad regulations, EC regulations (for EEA and Switzerland) or reciprocal agreement allowing for export applies.
	Persons abroad regulations—not payable on permanent absences. It can be paid for up to 26 weeks in certain circumstances provided the absence is temporary. It is not payable for incapacities beginning in the other country.
	EC regulations (EEA/Switzerland)—for IB short-term and maternity allowance can be considered for incapacities beginning in another state if the UK is responsible for the claim.
	EC regulations (EEA/Switzerland)—for IBST is exportable in certain circumstances for a period of 52 weeks (followed by IBLT at week 53), MA for 39 weeks.
	Reciprocal agreement (RA) countries—can be considered for incapacities beginning in the other country, subject to the particular reciprocal agreement. Can be paid subject to the particular RA.
	Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB)
	This may be exported and paid for any period during which a customer is absent from the UK, regardless of the country they are visiting or residing in.
	Contributory Jobseekers Allowance
	Customers who are getting contribution-based jobseekers allowance in the UK may be able to carry on getting it for up to three months while they look for work elsewhere in the EEA.
	Winter Fuel Payments (WFP)
	This is payable only to customers living in the EEA/Switzerland where entitlement arose before the customer left the UK.
	Disability Living Allowance (Care Component), Attendance Allowance and Carer's Allowance (DLA, AA, CA)
	These are all residence-based benefits. In general, a customer is required to be ordinarily resident and present in the UK, to have been present for at least 26 out of the previous 52 weeks and not be subject to immigration control. There are some exceptions under domestic law and, following the European Court of Justice judgment C-299/05, payment can be made under EC law to customers living in another EEA member state or Switzerland in certain circumstances.

British Overseas Territories: Environmental Sustainability

Lord Jones of Cheltenham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress they have made in helping the British Overseas Territories achieve environmental sustainability; and what further steps will be taken towards that aim.

Baroness Crawley: The Overseas Territories Environment Programme (OTEP), jointly operated by the Department for International Development (DfID) and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), is dedicated to supporting environmental sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories (OTs). It provides small grants to assist the territories with the implementation of their environment charters and with environmental management more generally. The DfID component of OTEP has supported 36 projects in six less advantaged territories and 10 multi-territory projects. The programme has successfully supported ecotourism development, environmental education programmes, monitoring and management of protected areas and conservation programmes for endangered species. An independent review of this programme in 2006 praised its leadership in supporting sustainable development in the OTs, particularly in conserving their rich biodiversity. The programme as currently approved will continue to support environmental projects to 2010.
	DfID is supporting the five UK territories in the Caribbean to develop and implement national climate change adaptation strategies and build capacity to assess and reduce vulnerability to climate change. This programme will continue to 2010.
	In those territories where DfID provides budgetary and other financial support to help move towards economic self-sufficiency, we will continue to apply rigorous environmental standards to appraisal and implementation of development activities.

Embryology

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answers by Lord Darzi of Denham on 19 May (WA 159—160), whether the use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) would overcome incompatibilities between proteins on the sperm and on either the zona pellucida or on the membrane of the egg; whether differences in the number of chromosomes always prevent interspecies hybridisation yielding viable progeny; and, if not, which species combinations might form embryos or foetuses or be viable.

Lord Darzi of Denham: Intracytoplasmic injection of a human sperm into an animal egg would constitute the creation of a human admixed embryo under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill and such an activity would require a licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. The Bill prohibits the implantation of human admixed embryos into a woman or an animal. Successful hybridisation is dependent on the extent of chromosomal rearrangement. In very closely related species, differences in the number of chromosomes does not always prevent successful hybridisation.

Embryology

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answers by Lord Darzi of Denham on 19 May (WA159—160), which arguments persuaded them to permit the creation and development of human-animal hybrids for up to 14 days in the absence of supporting published evidence; and under what circumstances they might similarly be considered necessary for research.

Lord Darzi of Denham: Evidence given to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, and the Pre-legislative Committee of both Houses that scrutinised the draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, indicated that the use of human admixed embryos has potential for better understanding and treating serious diseases. The Government took account of that evidence and the recommendations of the committees. Any licence application to create a human admixed embryo for research will need to prove that its use is necessary. No human admixed embryo created may be implanted into a woman or an animal, and may not be cultured for more than 14 days or after the appearance of the primitive streak.

Embryology

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Morgan of Drefelin on 19 May (WA 160), which particular ethical concerns might preclude the use of human embryos as a source of stem cells; and where such ethical concerns are explicitly described in current legislation or otherwise described in relevant guidelines.

Lord Darzi of Denham: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) may only issue a research licence for the purposes outlined in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, as amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2001. A licence committee of the HFEA would refuse a research licence application if it was not satisfied that the proposed research was necessary or desirable for one of the prescribed purposes and that the use of an embryo was necessary.
	The HFEA ensures that ethical aspects are taken into consideration when formulating policies. For example, the ethical implications of creating hybrids and chimeras were considered in depth in a recent consultation, which informed the final policy decision. The HFEA is advised on ethical issues, in all areas of its remit, by its Ethics and Law Advisory Group. The discussions and decisions of the Ethics and Law Advisory Group feed into the HFEA's policy development.
	Applications for HFEA licensed research also have to pass through the ethical consideration by funding bodies and local research ethics committees (LRECs). Both the HFEA and the LRECs ensure that the research centre has procedures that are in place to obtain informed consent.
	HFEA requirements and guidance on obtaining informed consent can be found in its code of practice.

Flags

Lord Tebbit: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Malloch-Brown on 25 April (WA 325), why the European Union flag is flown over public buildings and is present at some public ceremonies.

Lord Malloch-Brown: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport's guidance on flying flags advises that the European flag should be flown on Europe Day, 9 May, on government buildings with two or more flag poles, provided they are flown alongside the Union flag with the Union flag in the superior position.

Flags

Lord Tebbit: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Malloch-Brown on 25 April (WA 325), when they first became aware that the European Union flag has no legal status in United Kingdom or European Union law.

Lord Malloch-Brown: As set out in my Answer of 25 April, the European flag was adopted as the official emblem of the then European Communities by the heads of state and government in 1985. EU institutions have been using it since 1986. The legal status of the EU flag has not changed since then.

Food: Beef

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer on 21 April by the Minister of State for Public Health, Ms Dawn Primarolo, (Official Report, Commons, col. 1355W), whether regulatory impact assessments are monitored to gauge their accuracy; if so, where their monitoring is published; and whether the regulatory impact assessment in question has been reviewed since 2005.

Lord Darzi of Denham: The Food Standards Agency (FSA) consults on all its impact assessments as they are developed and publishes them on its website at www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/regulation/ria/. They are also available through the FSA's Information Centre, the Library, and from April this year, the Better Regulation Executive's impact assessment electronic library at www.ialibrary.berr.gov.uk/.
	The FSA has not reviewed the regulatory impact assessment (RIA) it produced for the European food hygiene regulations which came into force on 1 January 2006. The European Commission has undertaken to review the operation of these regulations by May 2009. This will require a new impact assessment to be produced and will provide the United Kingdom with a timely opportunity to revisit the original RIA. The UK will engage fully in this review.

Global Health Partnerships

Baroness Northover: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Following their response to Lord Crisp's report global health partnerships, what steps are being taken to enable medical royal colleges and postgraduate deans to support actively the recognition of appropriate international experience where it meets professional training requirements; and
	Following their response to Lord Crisp's report on global health partnerships, what steps have been taken to undertake a marketing strategy to highlight the benefits of volunteering on development and relief programmes to all stakeholders, including trusts and primary care trust boards; and
	Following their response to Lord Crisp's report on global health partnerships, what discussions they have had with interested stakeholders to formalise what is considered as recognised medical training overseas for each specialty, and the arrangements for assessment.

Lord Darzi of Denham: There has been a series of discussions between interested departments to make progress on these issues. The department has had additional discussions with No. 10 on ways forward and potential links between the response to the Crisp report and the global health strategy.
	We have also discussed implementation of our response to the Crisp report with a variety of stakeholders, particularly the British Medical Association (BMA)—and we are working together to develop a joint approach to develop consensus on issues such as the recognition of international experience where it meets professional training requirements. The BMA has already hosted one meeting for stakeholders—and we expect another to follow shortly. We have had meetings with the Tropical Health Education Trust since the launch of the report.
	The Department of Health (DH) and the Department for International Development (DfID) are in the process of finalising arrangements for the tendering of the framework and one-stop shop that we described in our response to Lord Crisp's report. DfID is working on the best mechanism for the £1.25 million links fund. The results of the independent links evaluation will help determine how best to use this money—and the draft report has recently been shared with DH and DfID. We will be discussing the government response to Lord Crisp's report, and how we can take forward a marketing strategy as part of the framework, at a future meeting of the National Health Service strategic health authority chief executives.
	We have also engaged with stakeholders through two meetings in the past month, one hosted by the Royal College of Physicians and a second by the Faculty of Public Health. There will also be discussion with stakeholders at this year's Faculty of Public Health Annual Meeting in June in Cardiff.
	Finally, DH and DfID will also be attending a meeting to mark the 20th anniversary of the Tropical Health Education Trust. This will provide a further opportunity to take these areas forward with interested stakeholders.

Health: Community Pharmacies

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will retain the national funding arrangements in the NHS community pharmacy contract, to ensure that community pharmacy contractors have the confidence to invest in new services; and whether these arrangements will continue under the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill, if enacted; and
	What mechanisms they intend to put in place to avoid geographical differences in NHS community pharmacy services, in the event of national funding arrangements in the NHS community pharmacy contract not being retained in the Health and Social Care Bill.

Lord Darzi of Denham: As now, the Government will determine the fees and allowances for the national elements of the community pharmacy contractual framework, the essential and advanced services, in negotiation with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee. Primary care trusts (PCTs) are not able to vary nationally agreed fees and allowances.
	The Government will continue the current arrangements with appliance contractors.
	The Government will also continue to monitor overall expenditure on fees and allowances and agree, with the appropriate bodies, any in-year adjustments that may be necessary to ensure PCTs achieve broad balance.

Health: Prescribing and Dispensing

Baroness Cumberlege: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In light of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, whether local individuals should be consulted before any decision is made to allow general practitioners both to prescribe and dispense medicines.

Lord Darzi of Denham: Section 233 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 amends Section 242 (public involvement and consultation) of the National Health Service Act 2006. Section 233 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 is not yet in force. The current duty to "involve and consult" arises under the existing Section 242 of the NHS Act 2006.
	Section 242 of the National Health Service Act 2006 requires certain NHS bodies, including primary care trusts (PCTs), to make arrangements to secure, whether directly or through representatives, users' involvement in and consultation on:
	the planning and provision of services;development and consideration of proposals for change in the way those services are provided; anddecisions made by that body which affect the operation of services.
	Decisions about allowing general practitioners to dispense medicines may give rise to a change in the provision of services and may involve development and consideration of proposals for change by the PCT in the way those services are provided. That would give rise to the duty to involve and consult under Section 242. Where there is no material change to the way in which services are provided, the Section 242 duty would not be triggered.
	The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 amendments to Section 242 do not change the way in which it applies to decisions about allowing doctors to dispense medicines—these may still fall within the meaning of Section 242. The amendment supports the view that the duty to involve and consult under Section 242 should only be triggered where there is a material change to the way in which services are provided, by clarifying that it applies where changes have an "impact on the manner in which services are delivered or the range of services provided". This would mean that, where changes are made to lists of dispensing doctors, involvement or consultation would be required where those changes do impact on the manner in which pharmaceutical services are delivered or the range of services provided. However, this would not cover, for example, a change of personnel only.

Israel and Palestine: Gaza

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What consideration they are giving to an emergency air-lift into Gaza to bring in food and medical supplies and remove persons needing medical treatment.

Baroness Crawley: The World Food Programme (WFP), the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and other humanitarian agencies are able to deliver essential food aid into Gaza through the crossings from Israel. An airlift into Gaza, which does not have a functioning airport, is not an option. Our focus should be on increasing the humanitarian and commercial items imported into Gaza and working towards the reopening of the crossings on a permanent basis.
	The UK continues to fund humanitarian assistance through UNRWA, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the European Commission's PEGASE mechanism. Despite ongoing constraints to their operations due to the violence, the access restrictions and the recent fuel crisis, humanitarian agencies continue to meet emergency needs on the ground. Together UNRWA and WFP provide food aid to over 1 million people in Gaza.
	Many Palestinians requiring urgent medical treatment in Israel have been evacuated to hospitals in Israel, east Jerusalem, Egypt and Jordan, although not all cases are allowed out of Gaza and some patients are delayed at crossings.
	Through our diplomatic efforts we continue to press Israel to ensure its actions do not worsen the suffering of ordinary Palestinians. We also condemn attacks by Palestinian militants—their actions perpetuate the cycle of violence and aggravate the humanitarian situation.

Israel and Palestine: Gaza

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the European Union and the other members of the quartet have assessed the risks to public health in Gaza arising from (a) the lack of treatment of raw sewage during the summer; (b) the risks to underground water supplies; (c) the lack of fuel for electricity generators; and (d) shortages of food and medical supplies; and whether the risks impose a duty on them to intervene.

Baroness Crawley: The quartet (European Union (EU), the United States, Russia and the United Nations) remains heavily engaged in the peace process and improving the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Most recently the quartet met in London on 2 May. They noted their deep concern over the humanitarian conditions in Gaza, called for continued humanitarian assistance to be provided to Gaza without obstruction, and for an end to all violence. The quartet was also represented at the ad hoc liaison committee meeting on 2 May where the UN presented an update on the current situation in Gaza.
	The Palestinian Coastal Municipalities Water Utility (CMWU) reports that up to 60 million litres of raw and partially treated sewage is discharged into the Mediterranean every day and that 90 per cent of mains water is polluted. The World Health Organisation reports that sea water in several areas of the Gaza coastline is polluted. CMWU works closely with the United Nations Children's Fund to address the sewage situation and minimise risks to public health. Some drugs and essential medical items are in short supply in Gaza and up to 76 per cent of the population is partly dependent on food aid, most of which is provided by the UN.
	Many countries, including members of the EU and the quartet, continue to press for an end to the violence and the access restrictions that intensify the suffering of ordinary Gazans. On 24 April, the EU issued a statement where it urged regular and unrestricted delivery of fuel supplies to Gaza, and condemned attacks by Palestinian militants. The UK and the international community provide substantial levels of humanitarian assistance.

Israel and Palestine: Gaza

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the recent joint report by eight British, Irish and French non-governmental organisations, The Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion.

Baroness Crawley: I pay tribute to the groups behind the report and to the many NGOs, UN agencies and others for their considerable efforts to provide humanitarian support to the people of Gaza. My honourable friend Shahid Malik, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development, has met the NGOs which wrote the report to discuss their insights into the situation in Gaza.
	We remain gravely concerned by the humanitarian situation in Gaza and we fund humanitarian support to meet the urgent needs created by the ongoing violence. The priority is to reopen the crossings and we have urged all parties to find a solution for doing so. The Foreign Secretary and I raise this regularly with the Israeli Government and it was a key message at the quartet and ad hoc liaison committee meetings that the UK hosted in London earlier this month. We have also condemned attacks by Palestinian militants on the Gaza crossings, which only worsen the humanitarian situation.

Israel and Palestine: Projects

Baroness Tonge: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What mechanism exists to ensure that projects for the benefit of Palestinians funded by the United Kingdom or intergovernmental organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member do not contravene the obligations articulated in the International Court of Justice's Wall Advisory Opinion in July 2004.

Baroness Crawley: The Department for International Development (DfID) provides humanitarian support to the Occupied Palestinian Territories through the UN and ICRC, and provides support aligned with the priorities of the Palestinian Authority, as set out in its Palestinian Reform and Development Plan. We carefully assess all of our assistance to ensure that our aid is not used to assist or maintain the situation created by the construction of the Israeli separation barrier inside the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around east Jerusalem.

Northern Ireland: Bill of Rights

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Following the appointment of Mr Chris Sidoti as chairman of the Northern Ireland Bill of Rights Forum, what advice was given to him concerning the appointment of policy committees; and whether the community and political balance of the membership of the committees is appropriate.

Lord Rooker: The appointment of policy committees was a matter for the Bill of Rights Forum. The work of the forum was independent from government and no advice was given on this matter.

Prisoners: Escapes

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many persons serving custodial sentences who abscond or escape from prison are at large; and how many such persons have been at large for over (a) six months, (b) 12 months and (c) five years.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The table below shows the number of prisoners still at large following an escape from a closed prison or abscond from an open prison for the time periods shown. Both escapes and absconds have been falling for over a decade, with the current low levels having been sustained for some years now. A more rigorous and professional attitude to security by staff has helped in this reduction. Attempted escapes from prisons over the same period shows little in the way of reduction.
	
		
			 Time Period at Large (months) Unlawfully at Large Following Escape Unlawfully at Large Following Abscond 
			 6-12 0 14 
			 12-24 0 24 
			 24-36 1 39 
			 36-48 0 30 
			 48-60 1 n/a 
			 60-72 1 n/a 
			 Totals 3 107 
		
	
	Notes:
	Data on absconders unlawfully at large were made available for the first time last year following an extensive data analysis exercise. They are available for the period from March 2004. Figures above represent the position at end March 2008.
	Data on escapers unlawfully at large have been collated over a six-year period in order to meet the timescales for answering this Question.
	These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale recording system. The data are not subject to audit.

Railways: Electrification

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their latest position on beginning a programme of railway electrification.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Government committed in last year's rail White Paper, Delivering a Sustainable Railway, to keep the case for electrification under review. Since then, the Secretary of State for Transport has invited Network Rail to lead work on the development of our understanding of the complex options that may be needed in the future, in the context of the Department for Transport's wider strategic planning process. The department also continues to work closely with the rail industry to explore how to improve the affordability of electrification schemes.
	The Government's immediate priority is to tackle congestion, and £10 billion has been committed for this purpose in the period to 2014. Should the case for further electrification be proven, it is likely to feature as part of the Government's specification for the next control period, between 2014 and 2019.